2005
DOI: 10.1001/archotol.131.12.1102
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts

Aerodynamic Effects of Inferior Turbinate Reduction

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
57
19
16
4

Citation Types

2
79
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2026
2026

Publication Types

Select...
77
5
3

Relationship

1
84

Authors

Journals

citations

Cited by 85 publications

(83 citation statements)
references

References 25 publications

2
79
0
2
Order By: Relevance
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…The changes in the ENS-IT models are generally consistent with the results in most previous studies[5,6]: decreased nasal resistance, velocities and wall shear stresses, and more chaotic streamlines. In the ENS-MT models, the changing trends of the measured parameters are similar to, while less remarkable than those in the ENS-IT models.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 89%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…The changes in the ENS-IT models are generally consistent with the results in most previous studies[5,6]: decreased nasal resistance, velocities and wall shear stresses, and more chaotic streamlines. In the ENS-MT models, the changing trends of the measured parameters are similar to, while less remarkable than those in the ENS-IT models.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 89%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…In fact, a very small error (∼34 µm) in the anatomical structure of the model can lead to a significant error in reported nasal flow. Similar results have been reported for nasal structure changes in human nasal cavities, such as inferior turbinate hypertrophy [2], inferior turbinate surgery [5] and nasal bone fracture [50]. One point to note is that, in the OE region, the average velocity in NCMw was higher than in NCMn, which was opposite to what was found in the whole model (Figure 5).…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 83%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…The mean total nasal resistance in their patients was 0.12 Pa/(ml/s), while literature reports for healthy subjects are on the order of 0.15-0.30 Pa/(ml/s) (38). The resistance figures calculated by CFD are somewhat lower than the ones obtained through rhinomanometry, as also found in other CFD studies (50). However, it should be borne in mind that by convention, rhinomanometry calculates nasal resistance at a transnasal pressure drop of 150 Pa (6).…”
Section: Discussion
mentioning
confidence: 47%